>>At the other extreme, I see a law/custom regarding mixing fish and meat in >>the same dish or plate. It was forbidden, some time in the middle ages, for >>purely health reasons (people believed mixing meat & fish in close proximity >>triggered leprosy). Now that we know this is not the cause of leprosy, this >>law may be dispensed with. It is charming that it persists as a custom, but >>it should not be a law, in my opinion. It is not based in any Mishne or >>Gemara. (Has it been revoked???)
I believe it is based on a Gemara, and it is just stated to be a "Sakana", a dangerous thing to do and is not related to leprosy.
>Now here, your get a greatly different opinion. As I understand it, the >purpose of these laws is not health reasons (although that is a common >rationalization). The purpose is to maintain a separateness and conscious >Jewish identity from the community around you.
Dan, I think you are thinking of milk and meat, not fish and meat. If so, your second sentance giving the purpose is no different a rationalization for the keeping of the laws of Kashrut than health reasons.
As to the status of fish and meat, the prohibition is brought down by many of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (including discussion about a (probably) misprinted opinion forbidding fish and milk). In most orthodox houses that I know, meat and fish are never cooked together, and in many (esp. Hassidic) one drinks some shnaps (wiskey) after the fish before eating meat.
> You >can't light fires, or cause any combustion, on Shabbat. I don't know >how the Reform rabbis got around this, & I'd be interested in hearing >if they offered halachic arguments (and thus attempted to stay within >Jewish halacha) or if they just dispensed with halacha when they made >their ruling.
Reform rabbis have not been distinguished, by and large, for their Halachic responsa. One of the leading German Reformers of the early 19th century, Abraham Geiger, advocated abolishing the practice of circumcision. His rationale? He considered it a "bloody, barbaric act."
At the occasion of the ordination of the first group of Reform rabbis from the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, the banquet included such delicacies as shrimp and pork products. I've yet to see a responsum halachically sanctioning those foods.
Even those Reform rabbis who do make an attempt to reconcile their actions with halacha leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the informed reader. To wit: Rabbi Solomon Freehof, in one of his "Reform Responsa" series, quotes the famous dictum of the Rabbis, "L'olam yilmad adam Torah V'ya'aseh Mitzvos afilu she-lo l'sh'ma, she-mitoch she-lo l'sh'ma ba l'sh'ma", (a per son should learn Torah and perform Mitzvos even with an ulterior motives [i.e. for the reward], because through ulterior motives one develops noble motive s.) Freehof decided that this saying was the precursor of Reform: "A person sho uld always perform good deeds even if HE HAS NO DOCTRINE, because later he can develop a doctrine." This he offered not as an INTERPRETATION, but a TRANSLATION.
The Jewish People has never suffered from a lack of internal strife.
>From the Hellenists, to the Sadducees, to the Samaritans, to the
Karaites, there has been no dearth of philosophies opposed to traditional Judaism. But apparrently, those who have held steadfast must be doing something right; how many Karaites do you know? This once powerful cult has been reduced to a mere handful of members in Cairo and Israel.
I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
Short-sighted leaders presiding over economic crises will often go for the "quick fix", at the expense of further damage somewhat later: print more money. In the short run, it injects some life into the economy, and to the casual onlooker it appears like a total recovery. In reality, it has the sa me effect as counterfeiting - spiralling inflation, and many other ills. The analogy to Patrilineal Descent should be clear.
At the outset of a new year, perhaps it's time for us all to do some seriou s introspection - without prejudices; an authentic search for truth. We no lo nger have the luxury of endlessly debating these issues. The Jewish people in th is country is simply disappearing. We have done something horribly wrong, and we owe it to posterity to right it.
In answer to two replies posted re the fish & meat issue: I can find sources if you wish, but I'm quite sure that the prohibition against fish & meat together was instituted purely for health reasons, and NOT because of any principle of separateness. this was from a source at Y.U. This is quite different than other kashrut issues, and in NO WAY do I mean to imply that kashrut is for health reasons. I think the "its for health" excuse used to break kashrut is particularly wrong, since there's no indication most kashrut is for this purpose at all!
re the "grasshoppers" issue, the Chumash lists a few insects, by specific species, that are kosher. For instance, there are specific species of locusts listed as kosher. (Note, when birds are listed, they are listed by specific species. so it's not a surprise to see the insect species listed thus, also.) Unfortunately, (or fortunately) we're not sure which species all those ancient hebrew names refer to. I don't know if we're sure about anything, in fact.
In article <2...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> s...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (samuel.saal) writes: >Now, before anyone goes yelling about how Conservative and Reform do >respect one or more of tradition and/or Halachah, I am only talking about >how it works under [oO]rthodoxy. I am neither confirming nor denying >anything about any other branch of Judaism nor any other religion. I am >also not attempting to deligitimize anyone. I am attempting to stick to >my plea that we not get embroiled in another, semiannual "who is a Jew and >why not me/them" inferno.
I, too, would like to echo this plea. I post on this subject to make people aware of the position of Reform. To educate, not to denegrate. I understand that one branch may not accept or like the practices of another branch.
However, if, G-d forbid, another holocaust happens, "the authorities" will not care what halacha says when determining the Jews to persecute. Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionalist, Orthodox, Non-affiliated -- all will be Jews -- no matter the parentage. The reason Israeli citizenship provokes such a concern is that if, G-d forbid, the situation ever arises that Jews need a place of refuge, we should not turn our backs on our brothers because they did not comply with every nuance of Halacha.
We are Jews to the world if we call ourself Jewish. Our bickering cannot and will not change that. Can we learn to understand our bretheren, even if we don't let them marry our daughters?
L'shana tovah: may a good year be inscribed and sealed.
Daniel Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149 Home :=> 9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 <= NEW ADDRESS * 818/892-8555 Email:fai...@aerospace.aero.org (or) Fai...@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"
>... and in many (esp. Hassidic) [houses] one drinks some >shnaps (wiskey) after the fish before eating meat.
>Avi Feldblum
We have Gefilte Fish most every Shabbos, then progress to the main course which is either Chicken, Beef, Veal, etc. I think this is a custom I could get into :-)
In article <4...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM>, m...@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (mark) writes: > In article <8...@cloud9.Stratus.COM> m...@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Mike Mahler) writes: > # No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
> We light them before shabbat, of course. What kind of question > is that ?
Oh, your everyday type of question: The type asked when one wants to learn something. Tell me, what type of pompous putz are you?
PS: I'd like to thank the people that have taken the time to explain to me by mail how it is that you extinguish the "combustible" (match) after the candles are lit (and Shabbas has begun). Truly, I wasn't aware of how you could light the candles and be holding a "combustion".
-- "You kill what you fear and you fear what you don't understand..." - Genesis
In article <4...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, MIKOLAJ@ohstpy writes: > I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and > such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of > the basic human rights.
Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares" themselves to be American be considered citizens without any kind of testing, ceremony, or anything else??
I really don't think you mean this. If you do, it seems a bit drastic.
In article <5...@shlump.nac.dec.com>, goldst...@delni.enet.dec.com writes:
> Shall we also ask "Jews for Jesus" their opinion of Jewish law and > practice? (presuming we can find a real born Jew among them!) Converts > are NOT a good source of information about their "previous" beliefs!
> fred
This is a gratuitous slam dunk of JFJ, especially the "born Jew" part.
I know several "born Jews" who are part of the "Messianic" (yuk for you I'm sure) movement. If I swatted at Jews on soc.rel.christian like this, I'm sure I'd be charbroiled in a New York nanosecond.
In article <5...@shlump.nac.dec.com>, goldstein@delni writes: > Likewise, Joe Bernstein, or other BTs, have some serious prejudices > in their view of Reform and Conservative Judaism. They may have had > some bad experiences -- probably near the worst, as they abandoned it -- > but descriptions like Joe's by no means typify non-Orthodox belief and > practice.
Sorry, but your generalization doesn't hold. I happen to have had a great Conservative upbringing. I remember almost _no_ "bad experiences" with Conservative Judaism. I went to a Conservative Day School for 9 years, had alot of fun in USY, believed the party line, and all the rest.
In college (for reasons I won't go into here) I started trying to make my practices and beliefs consistent. There were things that I'd always believed, like "food has to be cooked in seperate milk/meat dishes," and I started thinking things like "are the things I eat in resteraunts consistent with this??" I never had any bad experiences with the things I was doing, I just started thinking about them and slowly made some changes in my life.
The same is true for many friends of mine. Several BT's (recently Orthodox) I know were very happy Conservative or Reform Jews that simply decided that they prefer to be Orthodox. Their experience and memories of their pre-Orthodox practices are as honest or _more_ honest than still-Reform or Conservative people, because they've _thought_ about things and analyzed the reasons for things. In contrast, many Reform/Conservative people get insulted when I ask "why" questions, thinking that I'm knocking them or insulting them. It's ironic that the branches of Judaism that claim to "analyze things" and "think honestly about things" would get insulted at being asked logical questions about their beliefs and practices.
First of all, I'm not going to try and defend the practices of Reform. You either accept them or you don't. This is not the medium to try and have heated discussions or try and change positions. I only try and correct misstatements.
In article <1...@riscy.dec.com> j...@gaon.Berkeley.EDU writes: >I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our >generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold >in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the >bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its >doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds >to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
Most people know the Patrilineal Descent descision only by name. It does not say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
I regularly have to post this. Some have seen it before. I urge you to read it closely. You may not agree with it, but it describes the decision and how Reform came to it. You should note that Reform was not unanimous in accepting this decision.
[Note: _text_ indicates text in italics]
Report of the Committee on Patrilineal Descent on the Status of Children of Mixed Marriages (Adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, March 15, 1983)
The purpose of this document is to establish the Jewish status of the children of mixed marriages in the Reform Jewish community of North America. One of the most pressing human issues for the North American Jewish community is mixed marriage, with all its attendant implications. For our purpose, mixed marriage is defined as a union between a Jew and a non-Jew. A non-Jew who joins the Jewish people through conversion is recognized as a Jew in every respect. We deal here only with the Jewish identity of children born of a union in which one parent is Jewish and the other parent is non-Jewish.... According to the _halachah_ as interpreted by traditional Jews over many centuries, the offspring of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is recognized as a Jew, while the offspring of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is considered a non-Jew. To become a Jew the child of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father must undergo conversion. As a Reform community, the process of determining an appropriate response has taken us to an examination of the tradition, our own earlier responses, and the most current considerations. In doing so, we seek to be sensitive to the human dimension of this issue. Both the biblical and the rabbinical traditions take for granted that ordinarily the paternal line is decisive in the tracing of descent within the Jewish people. The biblical genealogies in Genesis and else in the Bible attest to this point. In intertribal marriage in ancient Israel, paternal descent was decisive. Numbers 1:2, etc., says: "By their families, by their fathers' houses" (_le-mish-pehotam le-veit avotam_), which for the rabbis means "The line (literally: 'family') of the father is recognized; the line of the mother is not" (_mishpahat av keruyah mishpahah; mishpahat eim einah keruyah mishpahah; Baba Batra 109b, Yebamot 54b; cf. Yan, Nahalot 1:6_). In the rabbinic tradition, this tradition remains in force. The offspring of a male _kohen_ who marries a Levite or Israelite is considered a _kohen_, and the child of an Israelite who marries a _kohenet_ is an Israelite. Thus _yachus_, lineage, regards the male line as absolutely dominant. This ruling is stated succinctly in _Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12_, that when a _kiddushin_ (marriage) is licit and no transgression (_ein avera_) is involved, the line follows the father. Furthermore, the most important parental responsibility to teach Torah rested with the father ({Kiddushin 29a; cf. Shulchan Aruch Yore De-ah 245:1_). When, in the tradition, the marriage was considered not to be licit, the child of that marriage followed the status of the mother (_Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12, ha-velad Kemotah_). The decisions of our ancestors thus to link the child inseparably to the mother, which makes the child of a Jewish mother Jewish and the child of a non-Jewish mother non-Jewish, regardless of the father, was based upon the fact that the woman with her child had no recourse but to return to her own people. A Jewish woman could not marry a non-Jewish man (cf. _Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 4:19, la tafsei kiddushin_). A Jewish man could not marry a non-Jewish woman. The only recourse in rabbinic law for the woman in either case was to return to her own community and people. But since the Emancipation, Jews have faced the problem of mixed marriage and the status of offspring of mixed marriage. The Reform Movement responded to the issue, and in 1947 the CCAR adopted a proposal made by the Committee on Mixed Marriage and Intermarriage: "With regard to infants; the declaration of the parents to raise them as Jews sall be deemed sufficient for conversion. This could apply, for example, to adopted children. This decision is in line with the traditional procedure in which, according to the Talmud, the parents bring young children (the Talmud speaks of children earlier than the age of three) to be converted and the Talmud comments that although an infant cannot give its consent, it is permissible to benefit somebody without his consent (or presence). On the same page the Talmud salso speaks of a father bringing his children for conversion, and says that the children will be satisfied with the action of their father. If the parents therefore will make a declaration to the rabbi that it is their intention to raise the child as a Jew, the child may, for the sake of impressive formality, be recorded in the Cradle-Roll of the religious school and thus be considered coverted. "Children of religious school age should likewise not be required to undergo a special ceremony of conversion but should receive instruction as regular students in the school. The ceremony of Confirmation at the end of the school course shall be considered in lieu of a conversion ceremony. "Children older than confirmation age should not be converted without their own consent. The Talmudic law likewise gives the child who is converted in infancy by the court the right to reject the conversion when it becomes of religous age. Therefore, the child above religous school age, if he or she consents sincerely to conversion, should receive regular instruction for that purpose and be converted in the regular conversion ceremony." (Vol. 57, CCAR Annual). This issue was again addressed in the 1961 edition of the _Rabbi's Manual_: "Jewish law recognizes a person as Jewish if his mother was Jewish, even though the father was not a Jew. One born of such mixed parentage may be admitted to membership in the synagogue and enter into a marital relationship with a Jew, provided he has not been reared in or formally admitted into some other faith. The child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, according to traditional law, is a _Gentile_; such a person would have to be formally converted in order to marry a Jew or become a synagogue member. "Reform Judaism, however, accepts such a child as Jewish without a formal conversion, if he attends a Jewish school and follows a course of studies leading to Confirmation. Such procedure is regarded as sufficient evidence that the parents and the child himself intend that the shall life as a Jew. (p. 112, _Rabbi's Manual._)" We face today an unprecedented situation due to the changed conditions in which decisions concerning the status of the child of a mixed marriage are to be made. There are tens of thousands of mixed marriages. In a vast majority of these cases, the non-Jewish extended family is a functioning part of the child's world, any may be decisive in shaping the life of the child. It can no longer be assumed _a priori_, therefore, tha the child of a Jewish mother will be Jewish any more than the child of a non-Jewish mother will not be. This leads us to the conclusion that the same requirements must be applied to establish the status of the child of a mixed marriage, regardless of whether the mother or the father is Jewish. Therefore,
The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parent and child, to Jewish life.
Depending on circumstances(1), mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, bar/bat mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation)(2). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identify, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.
(1) According to the age or setting, parents should consult a rabbi to determine the specific mitzvot which are necessary. (2) A full description of these and other mitzvot can be found in "Shaarei Mitzvah" (Gates of Mitzvah), A Guide to the Jewish Life Cycle, CCAR, New York, 1979. ISBN 0-916694-37-2.
Daniel
Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149 Home :=> 9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 <= NEW ADDRESS * 818/892-8555 Email:fai...@aerospace.aero.org (or) Fai...@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"
In article <1...@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Krulw...@eecs.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes: > In article <4...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, MIKOLAJ@ohstpy writes: >> I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and >> such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of >> the basic human rights.
> Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares" themselves > to be American be considered citizens without any kind of testing, ceremony, > or anything else??
> I really don't think you mean this. If you do, it seems a bit drastic.
I really mean that. You confused two things: nationality and citizenship. American example is not a very good one, because "beeing an American" means "beeing a citizen of USA". But generally you cannot equate these two words. I think in my original posting I gave sufficient evidence why I consider freedom to declare freely my own nationality as one of my basic rights as a human. Irish, German, Poles, Jews and many, many others have the right to remain such in this country even though they have american citizenship. It does not matter what is their status in Ireland, Germany, Poland and Israel, that is whether they have the citizenship rights there. Mikolaj
>> In article <4...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, MIKOLAJ@ohstpy writes: >>> I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and >>> such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of >>> the basic human rights.
>> Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares" themselves >> ... >I really mean that. You confused two things: nationality and citizenship.
I really doubt that if I declared myself Japanese, Eskimo, or a member of tribe umbu-mumbu my declaration would deserve anything but a laugh.
>of my basic rights as a human. Irish, German, Poles, Jews and many, many >others have the right to remain such in this country even though ^^^^^^ >they have american citizenship. It does not matter what is their status >in Ireland, Germany, Poland and Israel, that is whether they have the >citizenship rights there.
That "remain" I think is a key word. "Remain" not "declare/become"
In article <1...@cbnewsk.ATT.COM>, avi@cbnewsk (avi.y.feldblum) writes: >... and in many (esp. Hassidic) one drinks some >shnaps (wiskey) after the fish before eating meat.
Me, I'm a vegetarian, but I keep this minhag anyway.... :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture; Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much; Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Esperanto: la metodo por krei paca mondo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I see the eigenvalue in thine eye, I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh. Bernoulli would have been content to die Had he but known such a^2 cos 2(phi)! --Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
> It's > ironic that the branches of Judaism that claim to "analyze things" and "think > honestly about things" would get insulted at being asked logical questions > about their beliefs and practices.
The problem with "logic" is that people trying to prove their own points use "loaded questions" under the guise of using logic. To show this point, I'll first use a hypothetical example of cross-examination in a date-rape case, and you'll see it's all "logical"-
Q: Prior to the alleged rape, were you a virgin? A: No.
Q: When you had sex in the past, did you ever initially resist the advances of your lovers? A: Yes.
Q: Then how was my client supposed to know when "no" meant "no" and when "no" meant "come and get it"?
Clearly, what the defense did here was pick on a small piece of the total picture, and using questions to which the answers were known (e.g., pre-trial interviews with the victim's former lovers) was able to show that the victim was probably "loose" and "teasing".
Religious "logic" often follows the same line. An absolute assumption is made by the Orthodox, an assumption which may or may not be true, and then they use that, possibly false, assumption, to discredit the Conservative position.
Two cases in point-
1. Driving to shul on Shabbat and Yom Tov: the Orthodox will make the absolute assumption that starting a car is lighting a fire, and that is absolutely forbidden. Now, I do not know the Conservative reasoning for this issue, but it may be that the Mitzvah of public prayer conflicts with this fire prohibition (can anyone provide the authoritative Conservative reason?) and thus some middle-ground must be reached. Of course a "logical" argument that starts with, "Well, I'm sure you realize that starting or changing a fire on Shabbat is forbidden?" will steer the discussion to the Orthodox position (because the y/n answer to that question will not be "maybe"), although such a question avoids other issues.
2. The eating of broiled fish or fresh salads in a restaurant is another example. The absolute question "Well I'm sure you realize that dishes cannot be used for both milk and meat meals, and no food can be eaten from dishes on which treif food has been served?" ignores the fact that modern dishwashing techniques probably remove all (enough?) of the residue so that in fact no mixing of milk, meat, and treif is present. Also, I think the Conservative position on the 1:60 rule is different too in defining accidental contamination.
Now, I will approach the "logic" from a different direction, and will thus lead to a point where readers would find themselves supporting the Conservative position (remember though, for this "logic" to work, you would have to be unaware as to where the questioner was leading you to):
a. Do you feel it is very important to pray with a minyan if one is available? (Answer this one "yes" and you can be guidded right into agreeing it's OK to drive to shul on Shabbat, or being accused of being "illogical" when trying to answer that it's not OK after answering all the questions leading up to it).
b. Do you feel that modern dishwashing techniques sterilize utensils, etc?
As Mr. Spock would say, "It's all logical, Captain." -- Stan Krieger Summit, NJ ...!att!attunix!smk
In article <4...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> MIKO...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>Is the question "who is a Jew" really a purely religious one? >I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and >such a declaration should be respected by others.
How much of our problems are due to the fact that Judaism is both a religion and a nationality? Surely, anyone can state what their belief system is, and expect that that declaration be accepted by others. That is the religious belief. It is nationality and heritage that is acquired by birth, not religion.
An interesting area to explore is not "Who" is a Jew, but "What" is a Jew. How do the different movements and beliefs color our perceptions of Jewish nationality and peoplehood versus the Jewish religion and ethical systems? Can a distinction be made between the two? Can you have someone who is Jewish under one and not under the other?
Daniel Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149 Home :=> 9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 <= NEW ADDRESS * 818/892-8555 Email:fai...@aerospace.aero.org (or) Fai...@dockmaster.ncsc.mil Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"
In article <2...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, stank@cbnewsl (Stan Krieger) writes:
>The problem with "logic" is that people trying to prove their own points >use "loaded questions" under the guise of using logic.
>Religious "logic" often follows the same line. An absolute assumption >is made by the Orthodox, an assumption which may or may not be true, >and then they use that, possibly false, assumption, to discredit the >Conservative position.
>Two cases in point-
> 1. Driving to shul on Shabbat and Yom Tov: the Orthodox will > make the absolute assumption that starting a car is lighting > a fire, and that is absolutely forbidden.
As I have argued in a previous post, it is quite difficult to say that driving a car is *not* lighting a fire, halachically. This is a matter of reasoning through the halacha, *not* of making an "absolute assumption ... which may or may not be true".
> Now, I do not > know the Conservative reasoning for this issue, but it may > be that the Mitzvah of public prayer conflicts with this > fire prohibition (can anyone provide the authoritative > Conservative reason?) and thus some middle-ground must > be reached.
[ Here's the question leading one to the Conservative position: ]
> a. Do you feel it is very important to pray with a > minyan if one is available? (Answer this one > "yes" and you can be guidded right into agreeing > it's OK to drive to shul on Shabbat, or being accused > of being "illogical" when trying to answer that it's > not OK after answering all the questions leading up > to it).
I would very much like to see this sequence of questions. You see, there is an iron-clad rule in Halacha: "Ein mitzvah ba'ah b'aveirah", "a commandment cannot be fulfilled through a sin". Thus, not only is it not permitted to perform a commandment (such as davening in schul) by means of an sin (such as driving on Shabbat), but if it is done, there is no mitzvah fulfillment at all. I strongly believe that any line of questioning you would take to justify driving on Shabbat would run up against this as a stone wall.
G'mar chatimah tovah!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture; Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much; Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Esperanto: la metodo por krei paca mondo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I see the eigenvalue in thine eye, I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh. Bernoulli would have been content to die Had he but known such a^2 cos 2(phi)! --Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
In article <58...@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, faigin@sunstroke (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
>Actually, this is what Reform calls for. Investigate the laws, study them, and >retain those practices which improve the sanctity of your life and the >sanctity of your relationship to your fellow people.
Such a decision would necessitate, at the least, a complete knowledge of Shas, and the writings of the Rishonim. Probably a deep familiarity with classical and Jewish philosophy, as well. Almost no Orthodox Jews I know have that level of knowledge, even with 12 years of Yeshivah day school and several years of Yeshivah Gdolah. I would hardly expect someone to gain this knowledge with 2 years of afternoon Hebrew school.
>Look at when the Torah was written, and consider what is meant by lighting >fires. Does the Torah mean the literal act? Wood and ignition? Sparks? We can >create sparks just by walking on carpet. Does it mean creating a fire for a >specific purpose? For warmth? For food? For light? These are issues left for >interpretation. Back in Torah days, you could get to services that were nearby >by walking. I'd have to walk 10 miles to get to my synagogue, for cities today >are much larger.
So what? If you accept that driving a car is lighting a fire halachically (more on this later), then the halachic principle of 'mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah' kicks in. You see, a mitzvah which is performed by means of an aveirah (sin) not only is prohibited, but doesn't even count as a mitzvah. So you see that permitting driving to schul because of the mitzvah of davening with a minyan is a bit of an oxymoron (so to speak).
As far as the intent of the Torah when it speaks of kindling a fire, it seems to be hard to say that it only referred to creating a fire for specific purposes, as it didn't mention such at all. One may contrast this with the discussion of `malechet avodah', those types of `melacha' which are forbidden on Yom Tov; there it says that only that which is not `ochel nefesh' (for food) is prohibited. Here, where there is a context-dependent rule, the context is clearly spelled out. As far as fire on Shabbat goes, it says `lo t'va'aru eish b'chol moshvoteichem' (don't light/burn fires amongst all your dwelling places). The only context here is "amongst all your dwelling places", which can be seens, from other uses of the phrase, to mean anywhere inhabited. One may argue then that fire may be burned outside towns; but certainly not inside.
Now to the question whether internal combustion is fire or not. It is clear that according to the physical definition (rapid oxidation with intense release of heat) that internal combustion is fire. However, one may (and should) point out that halachic definitions are not necessarily bound to definitions from physics. So what do we know that *is* considered fire, traditionally? Well, one that's quite clear is that burning oil is definitely forbidden on Shabbat. This includes not only vegetable oils, but also naphtha, thus petroleum. Gasoline is, in essence, refined petroleum, thus burning it is certainly in this category. Now that that's established, is exploding aerated gasoline the same as burning it? Well, the reason that aerated gasoline explodes, rather than just burning, is because its surface-area to volume ratio is so high. Since the amount of gasoline burned is proportional to the surface area (sine oxidation requires air, the interface is the only place it can occur), when we greatly increase the surface area, the gasoline burns extremely quickly producing an explosion. The fact that we are burning tiny droplets suspended in air rather than a large "drop" in a bucket makes no difference---the process involved is the same, thus the halacha is the same. So we see that driving is inherently forbidden on Shabbat. Please note that this argument has nothing to do with electricity or riding horses.
>The basic purpose of Shabbat is separation and rest. I try and do things on >Shabbat that make it a special day distinct from the other days of the week. I >can do this with special meals. I can do this by going to services. I can do >this by taking time out to meditate. By going back to the original meaning, >and not just the words, I preserve the day in such a way that I am aware of >its specialness, not bound by the minutae.
But the minutiae *are* the original meaning! You are layering your idea of what a "day of rest" should be on top of several chosen bits and pieces out of traditional practice. I don't see how you can "go back to the original meaning" when you throw out large portions of the "original practice", n'est pas?
>>At the other extreme, I see a law/custom regarding mixing fish and meat in >>the same dish or plate. It was forbidden, some time in the middle ages, for >>purely health reasons (people believed mixing meat & fish in close proximity >>triggered leprosy). Now that we know this is not the cause of leprosy, this >>law may be dispensed with. It is charming that it persists as a custom, but >>it should not be a law, in my opinion. It is not based in any Mishne or >>Gemara. (Has it been revoked???)
>Now here, your get a greatly different opinion. As I understand it, the >purpose of these laws is not health reasons (although that is a common >rationalization). The purpose is to maintain a separateness and conscious >Jewish identity from the community around you.
First, it should be noted that the original poster was referring to the separation of meat and fish, which is a Rabbinic ordinance based on health reasons, rather than the other laws of Kashrut, derived from the Torah. Secondly, we should note here that whatever understanding we have regarding mitzvot, they can only be regarded as good reasons for the mitzvot, not their purposes. In the case of Torah Law, we have no way of knowing the true purposes of the mitzvot, since we can never (even theoretically) truly know G-d's will. As one sage once said "If I could understand Him, I'd *be* Him".
G'mar chatima tovah!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture; Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much; Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Esperanto: la metodo por krei paca mondo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I see the eigenvalue in thine eye, I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh. Bernoulli would have been content to die Had he but known such a^2 cos 2(phi)! --Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
in> writes: > First of all, I'm not going to try and defend the practices of Reform. You > either accept them or you don't. This is not the medium to try and have heated > discussions or try and change positions. I only try and correct misstatements.
> In article <1...@riscy.dec.com> j...@gaon.Berkeley.EDU writes: > >I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our > >generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold > >in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the > >bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its > >doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds > >to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
> Most people know the Patrilineal Descent descision only by name. It does not > say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
> I regularly have to post this. Some have seen it before. I urge you to read > it closely. You may not agree with it, but it describes the decision and how > Reform came to it. You should note that Reform was not unanimous in accepting > this decision.
I have seen this text before, and to me, it is another example of Reform sophistry. The author seeks justification from the Talmud, although his denomination has consistently rejected BIBLICAL law! I gave several examples of this in my note, and there is no lack of evidence for the inquiring mind. In most cases, little or no attempt is made to reconcile the decision with Jewish sources; "inconsistency with modern sensibilities" is often the sole rationalization.
To put it another way, let's assume the first two verses in Genesis would read as follows:
1. In the begining, G-d created the heavens and the Earth. 2. And G-d said, let each person's Jewishness be determined matrilineally, each man according to the house of his mother.
Would this imaginary verse stop the innovators? What would lead me to such an assumption? No other source, biblical or otherwise has ever been allowed to impede such "progress".
>It does not >say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
In my reading of the document, it says quite clearly:
>The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of >one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent.
Which, it is then clarified, means that no conversion is necessary.
I believe strongly that each individual should examine and rexamine his beliefs, or lack thereof, frequently. Most people arrive at philosophic and religious conclusions during their formative years, late teens to early twenties. From that point on, we usually coast, relying on those early conclusions, and become set in our ways through force of habit. I submit that those conclusions might be colored by our relative immaturity, laziness, or plain ignorance. We owe it to ourselves to seek the truth, constantly; otherwise we may be living a lie.
>of Yeshivah day school and several years of Yeshivah Gdolah. I would >hardly expect someone to gain this knowledge with 2 years of afternoon >Hebrew school.
I meant *12* years of afternon Hebrew school. No disrespect intended.
G'mar chatima tovah!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture; Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much; Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Esperanto: metodo por krei paca mondo. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I see the eigenvalue in thine eye, I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh. Bernoulli would have been content to die Had he but known such a^2 cos 2(phi)! --Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
In article <58...@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, faigin@sunstroke (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
> In article <1...@riscy.dec.com> j...@gaon.Berkeley.EDU writes: > >I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our > >generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold > >in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the > >bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its > >doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds > >to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
> Most people know the Patrilineal Descent descision only by name. It does not > say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
[ ... discussion of the decision that patrilineal descent required ] [ the child to accept Judaism upon him/her-self ... ]
I have a theory versus reality problem with this. Can anyone name a single child from a mixed marriage that Reform hasn't considered Jewish?? Does ANYONE in practice consider there to be any requirements upon a child with a non-Jewish mother to be considered Jewish by the Reform movement?? More importantly, does anyone in the Reform "establishment" consider there to be such a requirement in practice?? I have heard "no" from so many Reform Rabbis, teachers, etc. to be dubious of this.
In article <4...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, MIKOLAJ@ohstpy writes: > Krulw...@eecs.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes: > >> I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and > >> such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of > >> the basic human rights.
> > Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares" > > themselves to be American be considered citizens without any kind of > > testing, ceremony, or anything else??
> I really mean that. You confused two things: nationality and citizenship. > American example is not a very good one, because "beeing an American" > means "beeing a citizen of USA". But generally you cannot equate these > two words. I think in my original posting I gave sufficient evidence > why I consider freedom to declare freely my own nationality as one > of my basic rights as a human. Irish, German, Poles, Jews and many, many > others have the right to remain such in this country even though > they have american citizenship. It does not matter what is their status > in Ireland, Germany, Poland and Israel, that is whether they have the > citizenship rights there.
OK, I agree with everything you've said here, but you're reduced it to saying almost nothing of consequence, because declaring yourself to be of a nationality but not have the technical rights of that nationality is almost irelevant. To go back to the case of Judaism which started the discussion, you're saying that someone can freely declare him/herself to Jewish without being "technically Jewish," i.e., without having the analog to citizenship rights. In other words, someone can consider him/herself to be Jewish but not have the rights or responsibilities associated with members of the Jewish religion such as Aliya, marriage, or buying Israeli bonds. I see no reason why anyone in the world would ever argue with this.
In article <58...@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, fai...@sunstroke.aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
> In article <17...@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> e290j...@katerina.UUCP (Class Account) > writes: > >The question came up under "who's a Jew" how to handle an issue like > >driving on Shabbat, which is accepted in Reform Judaism but is quite > >frowned upon by most other Jewish authorities.
> Actually, driving to Shul on Shabbat is also accepted by the Conservative, > and, I believe, the Reconstructionalist movements.
Although many people do drive to schul on Shabbas at my congregation (Conservative) the Rabbi seems to frown on it heavily saying in a recent Rosh Hashanah sermon that "there are more aliyot on Shabbat than on Roahs Hashanah and it's therefore more important NOT to drive on Shabbat than even on Rosh Hashanah and ESPECIALLY when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat."
-- "You kill what you fear and you fear what you don't understand..." - Genesis
|
